| 1. |
- Andreasen, Anne Sofie, et al.
(författare)
-
New-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill adult patients-an SSAI clinical practice guideline
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 67:8, s. 1110-1117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Acute or new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill adult patients, and observational data suggests that NOAF is associated to adverse outcomes. Methods: We prepared this guideline according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We posed the following clinical questions: (1) what is the better first-line pharmacological agent for the treatment of NOAF in critically ill adult patients?, (2) should we use direct current (DC) cardioversion in critically ill adult patients with NOAF and hemodynamic instability caused by atrial fibrillation?, (3) should we use anticoagulant therapy in critically ill adult patients with NOAF?, and (4) should critically ill adult patients with NOAF receive follow-up after discharge from hospital? We assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality, thromboembolic events, and adverse events. Patients and relatives were part of the guideline panel. Results: The quantity and quality of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults was very limited, and we did not identify any relevant direct or indirect evidence from randomized clinical trials for the prespecified PICO questions. We were able to propose one weak recommendation against routine use of therapeutic dose anticoagulant therapy, and one best practice statement for routine follow-up by a cardiologist after hospital discharge. We were not able to propose any recommendations on the better first-line pharmacological agent or whether to use DC cardioversion in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability induced by NOAF. An electronic version of this guideline in layered and interactive format is available in MAGIC: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7197. Conclusions: The body of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults is very limited and not informed by direct evidence from randomized clinical trials. Practice variation appears considerable.
|
|
| 2. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:1, s. 45-55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. Methods We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. Results The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. Conclusion We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.
|
|
| 3. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:5, s. 702-710
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. Discussion This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.
|
|
| 4. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48, s. 580-589
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. Methods We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. Results We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.
|
|
| 5. |
- Jonmarker, Sandra, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone on thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19-a post hoc analysis of the randomized, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Intensive Care. - : SPRINGER. - 2110-5820. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThromboembolism is more common in patients with critical COVID-19 than in other critically ill patients, and inflammation has been proposed as a possible mechanism. The aim of this study was to investigate if 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily reduced the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism in patients with critical COVID-19.MethodsUsing additional data on thromboembolism and bleeding we did a post hoc analysis of Swedish and Danish intensive care unit patients enrolled in the blinded randomized COVID STEROID 2 trial comparing 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death or thromboembolism during intensive care. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolism, major bleeding, and any bleeding during intensive care.ResultsWe included 357 patients. Whilst in intensive care, 53 patients (29%) in the 12 mg group and 53 patients (30%) in the 6 mg group met the primary outcome with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of - 0.5% (95% CI - 10 to 9.5%, p = 1.00) and an adjusted OR of 0.93 (CI 95% 0.58 to 1.49, p = 0.77). We found no firm evidence of differences in any of the secondary outcomes.ConclusionsAmong patients with critical COVID-19, 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily did not result in a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism. However, uncertainty remains due to the limited number of patients.
|
|
| 6. |
- Munch, Marie Warrer, et al.
(författare)
-
Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial : Protocol and statistical analysis plan
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:6, s. 834-845
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. Methods The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. Discussion The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.
|
|
| 7. |
- Myatra, Sheila Nainan, et al.
(författare)
-
Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 67:5, s. 569-575
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.
|
|
